1. 1 Lecture Outline nTypes of stereotypes nAssumptions of stereotypes nDefinition of stereotypes nMeasurement of stereotypes nStereotypes: inaccurate, exaggerated, and resistant to change? Extra Credit next week at start of class

2. 2 Extra Credit nNext Wednesday (April 3rd) there will be an experiment. If you are late, you can’t participate and will miss the extra credit nParticipation will earn you extra credit that will be added to final grade in class nParticipation is of course voluntary

3. 3 Midterm nGrades have been posted on 1st floor of Lago nTo see exam, please make an appt. with me or TA

4. 4 Stereotypes nWorking definition: Generalized beliefs about a social group attributes behaviors social roles (nurturing)(homemakers)(take care of children)

5. 5 Types of Stereotypes nCultural stereotypes Beliefs about a group that are endorsed by society at large Examples……...

6. 6 Cultural Stereotypes nAcross 1200 commercials women were portrayed most often as…. l Domestics l Dependent on men l Submissive l Sex objects l Stupid l Superwomen

7. 7 Types of Stereotypes nPersonal (individual) stereotypes One person’s beliefs about a group

8. 8 Cultural and Personal Stereotypes nSometimes they overlap: Society portrays New Yorkers as loud, and Mary thinks they are loud too nSometimes they don’t overlap: Society portrays Librarians as spinsters, but Mary doesn’t think they are

9. 9 Consensual Stereotypes Definition: Extent to which people agree on the content of a stereotype High consensus = high agreement

10. 10 Consensual Stereotypes Personal stereotypes nSometimes consensual: (many people may believe that New Yorkers are loud) nSometimes not consensual: (Mary believes lawyers are short, but nobody else does

11. 11 Assumptions of Stereotypes Stereotypes have been characterized in three ways 1. Inaccurate 2. Exaggerations 3. Resistant to change

12. 12 Stereotype Inaccuracy Stereotypes are inaccurate when they are at odds with empirical evidence La Pierre (1936) Purpose: Examine whether ethnic stereotypes are inaccurate

13. 13 La Pierre (1936) Armenian stereotype: l dishonest l lying l deceitful Procedure: l Sampled credit ratings from local a Merchant’s Association l Compared Armenian & non-Armenians

14. 14 La Pierre (1936) Prediction: If Armenians really are dishonest, lying, and deceitful, then they should have worse credit ratings than non-Armenians

15. 15 La Pierre (1936) Percent of good, fair and bad credit risk

16. 16 La Pierre (1936) Armenian stereotype did NOT correspond to empirical evidence The stereotype was inaccurate

17. 17 Stereotype are Exaggerations Stereotypes are exaggerations when differences between groups are thought to be larger than they really are Example…….

18. 18 Stereotype are Exaggerations Perceived Heights of Men and Women Men = 5’11 Women = 5’5 (Diff = 6 in.) Actual Heights of Men and Women Men = 5’10 Women = 5’6 (Diff = 4 in.) Perceived differences are exaggerated

19. 19 Stereotypes are Resistant to Change Stereotypes remain stable over time and across generations

20. 20 Are stereotypes inherently inaccurate, always exaggerated, and highly resistant to change? No. As you will see soon, stereotypes have been stereotyped!!

21. 21 Definitions of Stereotypes For most of the 20th Century researchers did not have a good, clear definition of the term “stereotype”

22. 22 Definitions of Stereotypes Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Sampled the literature to identify how stereotypes were defined. This is what they found……….

23. 23 Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Stereotypes had been defined in six different ways!!

24. 24 1. Generalized Beliefs Stereotyping may be defined as the tendency to attribute generalized and simplified characteristics to groups of people in the form of verbal labels, and to act towards the members of those groups in terms of those labels (Vinacke, 1949, p. 265).

25. 25 2. Categories or Concepts A stereotype is commonly thought of as involving a categorical response--i.e., membership is sufficient to evoke the judgment that the stimulus person possesses all of the attributes belonging to that category (Secord, 1959, p. 309).

26. 26 3. Incorrectly Learned Unlike other generalizations stereotypes are based not on an inductive collection of data, but on hearsay, rumor, and anecdotes--in short, on evidence which is insufficient to justify the generalization (Klineberg, 1951 p. 505).

27. 27 4. Exaggerations A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category (Allport, 1958, p. 187).

28. 28 5. Inaccurate A stereotype is a fixed impression, which conforms very little to the fact it pretends to represent, and results from our defining first and observing second (Katz and Braly, 1935, p. 181).

29. 29 6. Rigid and Resistant to Change Stereotypy...the disposition to think in rigid categories (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).

30. 30 YIKES! What sense can one make of all that? Field lacking formal, consistent and clear definition of the term “stereotype”

31. 31 Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Offered A Formal Definition “A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people”

32. 32 Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Limitation: Lots of attributes describe members of social groups, but they are not part of the stereotype Example……..….

33. 33 WOMEN According to sex stereotypes, women are….... nnurturing ntake care of children nhomemakers But women also…….. have two arms eat food have friends

34. 34 Question: Why aren’t those attributes in the stereotype of women?

35. 35 Answer: Because they don’t distinguish women from other groups. We will return to this point, but most researchers use Ashmore & Del Boca’s definition.

36. 36 Measurement of Stereotypes Three common procedures: 1. Adjective checklist 2. Rating scale 3. Free responses

37. 37 Adjective Checklists Participants are given list of predetermined attributes and select those that are most typical of group

38. 38 1st way that stereotypes were measured Katz and Braly (1933) nSampled 100 Princeton University students (all male, all white) nUsed adjective checklist procedure to identify stereotypes of 10 ethnic and national groups Adjective Checklists

39. 39 Katz and Braly (1933) The 10 groups GermansJews ItaliansAmericans African AmericansChinese IrishJapanese EnglishTurks

40. 40 Katz and Braly (1933) Procedure: 1. Participants given list of 84 traits 2. Participants selected the 5 that were most typical of each group (5 traits per group)

41. 41 Katz and Braly (1933) How content was assessed: The 10 traits that were selected most often

42. 42 Results: Content African Americans Percent Trait endorsed Superstitious84% Lazy75% Happy-go-lucky38% Ignorant38% Musical26% Jews Percent Trait endorsed Shrewd79% Mercenary49% Industrious48% Grasping34% Intelligent29%

43. 43 Results: Content Irish Percent Trait endorsed Pugnacious45% Quick tempered39% Witty38% Honest32% Very religious29% Americans Percent Trait endorsed Industrious49% Intelligent48% Materialistic33% Ambitious33% Progressive27%

44. 44 Results: Content Irish Percent Trait endorsed Pugnacious45% Quick tempered39% Witty38% Honest32% Very religious29% Americans Percent Trait endorsed Industrious49% Intelligent48% Materialistic33% Ambitious33% Progressive27%

45. 45 Results: Content Italians Percent Trait endorsed Artistic53% Impulsive44% Passionate 37% Quick tempered35% Musical30% Japanese Percent Trait endorsed Intelligent48% Industrious46% Progressive26% Shrewd23% Sly21%

46. 46 How consensus was assessed: Distinctiveness scores: Number of traits needed to account for 50% of responses All you need to know is that these scores measured consensus and lower scores = more consensus

47. 47 Results: Consensus Group Distinctiveness Score African Americans 4.6 (most consensual) Germans5.0 Jews5.5 Italians6.9 English7.0 Irish8.5 Americans8.8 Japanese 10.9 Chinese 12.0 Turks 15.9 (least consensual)

48. 48 Adjective Checklists Benefits: l Can include a lot of attributes l Easy to complete Drawback: l May omit central traits from list l List may become outdated

49. 49 Rating Scales Participants given list of pre- determined attributes and asked to rate how much each describes the group How warm-hearted are gay men? 12345 not at all very

50. 50 Rating Scales Benefits: l Can include a lot of attributes l Easy to complete Drawback: l May omit central traits from list l List may become outdated

51. 51 Rating Scales One distinct advantage over Adjective Checklists: More specific measurement of the stereotype -- Responses are not “all or none”

52. 52 Rating Scales Measurement specificity important because……. Researchers can assess “stereotype strength”

53. 53 Rating Scales Definition: Stereotype Strength Extent to which the attributes in a stereotype are thought to characterize the group Example……...

54. 54 Example: Stereotype Strength Smithtown residents nvery upper class nvery snobbish nvery reclusive Jonestown residents nslightly upper class nslightly snobbish nslightly reclusive

55. 55 Example: Stereotype Strength nThe content of the stereotypes is the same…………..BUT nSmithtown stereotype is stronger VERY characteristic of Smithtown SLIGHTLY characteristic of Jonestown

56. 56 Content vs. Strength nStereotype content: attributes contained in a stereotype nStereotype strength: extent to which these attributes are thought to characterize a group

57. 57 Stereotype Strength Adjective Checklists cannot measure a stereotype’s strength Rating scales can measure a stereotype’s strength

58. 58 Free Responses Participants asked to list the attributes that describe a social group Example Please list those attributes that you believe describe Germans

59. 59 Free Responses Benefits: l Measures central traits l Don’t ever become outdated Drawbacks: l Incomplete responding l May not measure weakly endorsed attributes

60. 60 Distinguishing Features nAdjective checklists, rating scales, and free responses may indirectly assess the attributes that distinguish between groups nOnly one measure does so directly

61. 61 Diagnostic Ratio Participants given a list of attributes and asked to make two percentage estimates 1. % of group that has each attribute 2. % of reference group that has each attribute

62. 62 Diagnostic Ratio DR =% of group (with attribute) % of reference (with attribute)

63. 63 Diagnostic Ratio When DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute does not distinguish between groups Example Jon believes that…… 99.9% of women have arms 99.9% of Americans have arms DR = 99.9/99.9 =1

64. 64 Diagnostic Ratio When DR substantially greater than 1, attribute does distinguish between groups and is stereotypic of group Example: Jon believes that……. 35% of women are nurturing 20% of Americans are nurturing DR = 35/20 = 1.75

65. 65 Diagnostic Ratio When DR substantially less than 1, attribute does distinguish between groups and is counterstereotypic of group Example: Jon believes that……. 10% of women are aggressive 25% of Americans are aggressive DR = 10/25 =.40

66. 66 Diagnostic Ratio So, according to the DR measure, a stereotype is defined…. As set of beliefs about a group that distinguish that group from other groups in either a stereotypic way (DR > 1) or a counterstereotypic way (DR < 1).

67. 67 McCauley & Stitt (1978) Purpose: 1. Show utility of DR 2. Measure (in)accuracy of stereotype about African Americans

68. 68 McCauley & Stitt (1978) Participants: Sampled five groups l High school students l College students l Union members l Church Choir l Social work students

69. 69 McCauley & Stitt (1978) Procedure: Step 1: Participants estimated % of African Americans and % of Americans that had 7 characteristics……..

70. 70 7 Characteristics % completed HS % that are illegitimate % that were unemployed last month % who have been victims of crimes % on welfare % w/4 or more children % w/female heads of households

71. 71 McCauley & Stitt (1978) Procedure (continued): Step 2: Obtained census information to serve as criteria for accuracy Step 3: Transformed census information into DR scores

72. 72 Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978) 76 AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60) Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30) Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30) Victims 1.50.83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40 Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30) Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70) Green DR’s (or DR in parentheses) = different from 1 (p <.05). Black DR’s not different from 1 (p >.05). Underlined DR’s = different from criteria (p <.05)

73. 73 Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978) 77 AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60) Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30) Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30) Victims 1.50.83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40 Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30) Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70) Most DR’s different from one (green): People held stereotype of African Americans

74. 74 Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978) 78 AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60) Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30) Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30) Victims 1.50.83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40 Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30) Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70) Some DR’s different from criteria [underlined]. Other DR’s not different from criteria [not underlined]: People’s stereotypes were both inaccurate [underlined] and accurate [not underlined]

75. 75 Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978) 79 AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60) Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30) Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30) Victims 1.50.83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40 Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30) Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70) When DR’s indicated inaccurate stereotype [underlined], difference was smaller than criteria: People’s stereotypes underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences

76. 76 McCauley & Stitt (1978) Summary of Findings 1. Content: People endorsed stereotypes of African Americans (most DR’s different than 1)

77. 77 McCauley & Stitt (1978) 2. (In)accuracy: a) Some DR scores different from criteria (inaccuracy) b) Other DR scores not different from criteria (accuracy) African American stereotype both accurate and inaccurate

78. 78 McCauley & Stitt (1978) 3. Exaggeration: When stereotype was inaccurate, DR scores showed underestimation not exaggeration

79. 79 Conclusions: McCauley & Stitt (1978) 1. Stereotypes not always inaccurate 2. Inaccurate stereotypes not always exaggerated

80. 80 Stereotypes Have Been Stereotyped nSo, although people do hold stereotypes, those stereotypes are not necessarily inaccurate nor are they always exaggeration. nBut what about resistance to change?

81. 81 Princeton Trilogy nKatz & Braly (1933) nGilbert (1951) nKarlins, Coffman, & Walters (1969) Recent Replication/Extension nMadon et al. (2001)

82. 82 Princeton Trilogy Limitation of the Princeton trilogy: l Never updated the attribute list Problem because…… Outdated attribute list may omit current beliefs and underestimate change by leading people to endorse old, and therefore, similar stereotypes

83. 83 Madon et al. (2001) Three studies: Study 1: replicated Princeton trilogy Study 2: updated the attribute list Study 3: assessed changes in favorableness

84. 84 Madon et al. (2001) Study 1 Procedure: 1. Given original attribute list 2. For each group, selected the five most typical

85. 85 Madon et al. (2001): Study 1 Results: Content: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly This is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

86. 86 Madon et al. (2001): Study 1 Results: Consensus: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly This too is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

87. 87 Outdated Attribute List Study 1 showed little change Could this be due to an outdated attribute list? Study 2 tested this by updating the attribute list

88. 88 Madon et al. (2001) Study 2 Procedure: 1. Updated original attribute list w/322 new attributes (total = 406) 2. Rated extent to which each attribute described the groups

89. 89 Madon et al. (2001): Study 2 Results Content: 9 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish didn’t change Consensus: 7 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish, Jewish, Italian did not change

90. 90 Madon et al. (2001): Study 2 These results are NOT consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

91. 91 Madon et al. (2001) Study 3 Purpose: Examine whether the stereotypes have changed in favorableness

92. 92 Madon et al. (2001): Study 3 Procedure: Participants rated the favorableness of the 1933, 1951, 1969 and 1990s stereotypes

93. 93 Madon et al. (2001): Study 3 Results More Favorable Less Favorable African AmericanAmerican ChineseEnglish JapaneseGerman Turkish Italian Irish Jewish

94. 94 Madon et al. (2001): Study 3 Changes in favorableness do NOT support idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

95. 95 Stereotypes are not inherently inaccurate (McCauley & Stitt, 1978) Stereotypes are not always exaggerated (McCauley & Stitt, 1978) Stereotypes are not resistant to change (Madon et al., 2001)

96. 96 Why Study Stereotypes? Stereotypes may create social problems One way they can do this is through self-fulfilling prophecies

97. 97 Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Definition: Self-fulfilling prophecies are false beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment

98. 98 Three steps to a SFP: 1. Perceiver holds false belief about target 2. Perceiver treats target in manner consistent with false belief 3. Target responds to this treatment in such a way as to confirm the originally false belief

99. 99 Self-Fulfilling Prophecies are not Perceptual Biases Perceptual biases: When a perceiver believes that a false belief has come true, when in fact it has not

100. 100 Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Do Not Reflect Predictive Accuracy Predictive Accuracy: When a perceiver correctly predicts a target’s future behavior, but did not cause that behavior to occur (I predict Jazz will win, and they do)

101. 101 Stereotypes and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Merton (1948) African Americans thought to be strike breakers l African Americans barred from unions l Had few job opportunities l Took any work that came along l Took strikers jobs l Confirmed stereotype

102. 102 Research on Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Studies fall into two broad categories 1. Naturalistic research: l Perceivers’ beliefs assessed l Inaccuracy of beliefs determined l Teachers and students 2. Experimental research: l False beliefs induced

103. 103 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Purpose: Examine whether the attractiveness stereotype is self-fulfilling Stereotype is that attractive people have all sorts of good attributes (e.g., intelligent, friendly, sociable)

104. 104 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Participants: l 51 men and 51 women l men and women paired off l never saw one another Men = perceivers Women = targets

105. 105 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Procedure: l Interactions w/o nonverbal behavior l Biographical questionnaire for partner l Photo of male l Male got photo of his female partner l Male rated his partner on traits l Conversed over telephone (tape made) l Male rated his partner again

106. 106 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Manipulation: nAttractive partner nUnattractive partner

107. 107 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) l Judges listened to conversation l Judges rated male’s behavior l Judges rated female’s behavior

108. 108 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Results: l Males judged warmer and nicer in attractive condition l Females judged warmer and friendlier in attractive condition

109. 109 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Females did not differ across conditions Thus, only possible cause of differences in behavior after conversation was due to the treatment they received…………...

110. 110 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Specifically……. The men were very warm and nice to the “beautiful” women The “beautiful” women responded in kind.

111. 111 Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) The men were not warm and not nice to the “ugly” women The “ugly” women responded in kind.